Re: Clarification

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Brendan Aragorn <gloppius@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> Mark,
>> I emphatically trust my UA vendor, Mozilla.  If by gatekeeper you mean
>> that they are able to block or warn of CDMs they find untrustworthy I am
>> quite satisfied.
>>
>
> This is up to them. There is nothing in EME that says UAs have to provide
> a plugin API enabling users to download and install arbitrary CDMs and I
> hope that UAs will not do this. The EME will cause a proliferation of
> plugins is one of the bigger myths that as been spread about the proposal.
> The intention is to *get rid of* plugins.
>
> So, then, the only way a CDM would be usable in the HTMLMediaElement is if
> the UA has explicitly chosen to provide support for it. I would also expect
> them to allow the user to enable/disable it. Possibly they may want to ask
> the user for permission the first time it runs for each origin. Again, it's
> up to UA implementors, but some possible ways a UA could provide support
> for a given CDM might be:
> - the CDM is integrated directly into the UA and ships with the UA
> executable
> - the CDM is implemented in the platform and the UA uses public platform
> APIs to access it
> - the CDM is a separately downloadable software module that the UA vendor
> has integrated with and vetted. The UA will only load and execute it if it
> passes some kind of code integrity check.
>
> The last one is rather unsatisfactory, since it still looks and feels like
> a plugin to the user, though it has the same properties as the first two.
> It might be a path forward if there is some reason the CDM cannot ship with
> the UA itself.
>
>
>>   As an aside I meant that I would be willing to adopt their software as
>> soon as it has proven itself to be safe.  I realize that noone can "prove"
>> future action in the present.  I merely meant that those with a history of
>> respecting the rights of others are more likely to continue in such fashion.
>>
>
> Fair enough. So do you agree, then, that putting DRM into the hands of the
> UA vendors - who clearly have such a history - is better than proprietary
> plugins or proliferation of native apps ?
>
> ...Mark
>
>
>>
>>   ------------------------------
>>  *From:* Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
>> *To:* Brendan Aragorn <gloppius@yahoo.com>
>> *Cc:* public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2013 1:01 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: Clarification
>>
>> [This one, too, should be on restricted media]
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Brendan Aragorn <gloppius@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>
>> Mr Adams brought to my attention that my posting was rather unclear, so
>> I am replying to it here as well.
>>
>> Furthermore, the EME proposal addresses this risk by making the UA
>> vendors the gatekeepers, unlike the current situations with plugins. [Note
>> that if you don't trust your UA vendor you have bigger problems every time
>> you access an Internet Banking site, for example].
>>
>>
>> I do not trust their software and so prefer my content on my dvd player
>> where it cannot actively or unitntentionally harm me.
>>
>>
>> See above, but of course it remains your choice to obtain the content on
>> DVD.
>>
>>
>>   I also believe that open source operating systems should be supported,
>> especially considering that a minor majority of the internet is running on
>> them, and that most of the earths poulation cannot afford the proprietary
>> ones.
>>
>>
>> Linux support would be great. Microsoft is never going to support
>> Silverlight on Linux so moving from Silverlight to EME at least offers some
>> opportunity. Indeed, the first deployment of EME is on a Linux-based OS
>> (ChromeOS).
>>
>> It seems that the things you want: better security/privacy protection and
>> wider OS support are actually goals of EME, so I am not sure why you are
>> opposed to it ?
>>
>>
UA's gain a level of trust with me by publishing their source so that it
can be vetted by the community at large.  I don't trust them blindly.
Publishing the source for CDM's would make it less threatening.  I see no
reason why this can't be done; ssh is open, and more secure for having
published source.
-- 
Rick